Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 39 references

First search for solar axions produced by resonant transverse-plasmon conversion finds no signal and places the first experimental bound on this production channel.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 08:59 UTC pith:TVKPYAET

load-bearing objection First experimental search for transverse-plasmon solar axions; null result is clean, but the headline limit rests on a solar B-field model that saturates upper bounds and the printed modulation equations have a factor-2ε typo. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27346 v1 pith:TVKPYAET submitted 2026-07-29 hep-ex astro-ph.SR

First Experimental Bounds on Transverse Plasmon Solar Axions with ANAIS-112

S. J. Hollick , M. Giannotti , J. Ruz , J. K. Vogel , R. M. Alkaddah , J. Amar\'e , J. Apilluelo , S. Bharat
show 11 more authors
S. Cebri\'an D. Cintas I. Coarasa E. Garc\'ia M. Mart\'inez Y. Ortigoza A. Ortiz de Sol\'orzano T. Pardo J. Puimed\'on M. L. Sarsa C. Seoane
This is my paper
classification hep-ex astro-ph.SR
keywords solar axionsaxion-like particlestransverse plasmonsresonant axion productionaxion-photon couplingannual modulationinverse Primakoff effectNaI(Tl) detector
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that solar axion-like particles produced by resonant conversion of transverse plasmons in the Sun's magnetic field can be tested with an existing low-background detector, using the annual modulation of the flux caused by Earth's eccentric orbit. Analyzing 625.75 kg·yr of ANAIS-112 NaI(Tl) data in 1 keV bins from 1–20 keV, the collaboration finds all modulation amplitudes consistent with zero. This null result yields the first constraints on the axion–photon coupling that include the transverse-plasmon flux, the strongest being g_aγ < 1.32×10⁻⁹ GeV⁻¹ (90% C.L.) at m_a ≈ 150 eV. If correct, the result closes a previously unexplored gap: in the 35–280 eV mass range the resonant flux can exceed the standard Primakoff flux by up to two orders of magnitude, so the same data exclude couplings that Primakoff-only analyses would have missed.

Core claim

For each axion mass, transverse-plasmon–axion conversion happens on a resonant shell where the local plasma frequency equals the axion mass, so the flux and its spectrum are set by the magnetic field and temperature at that specific solar radius. No statistically significant annual modulation is observed in the 1–20 keV window; the null result is converted into an exclusion curve. The key number is g_aγ < 1.32×10⁻⁹ GeV⁻¹ (90% C.L.) at m_a ≈ 150 eV, a factor of about 2.73 improvement over using the Primakoff flux alone at that mass. The exclusion band in the 35–280 eV range owes its shape to the resonance condition, and the experiment's sensitivity there is dominated by the transverse-plasmon

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is resonant transverse-plasmon–axion conversion: inside the Sun, photons acquire an effective mass equal to the local plasma frequency ω_p(r), and axions of mass m_a convert most efficiently in a thin shell where ω_p(r) = m_a. The conversion probability is a Breit–Wigner resonance regularized by the transverse photon damping rate, and the flux scales as g_aγ² times the square of the local magnetic field with a 1/3 angular average. Detection uses the inverse Primakoff effect in NaI(Tl) crystals, and the signal is extracted from the annual modulation arising from the 1.67% eccentricity of Earth's orbit, with the period fixed to one year and the phase fixed to perihelion.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted transverse-plasmon axion flux assumes a solar radiative-zone magnetic field peaking around 3×10⁷ G, but the real field is unmeasured and the paper itself notes that the adopted model saturates observational upper limits rather than being a measurement—if the field is weaker, the flux and the quoted coupling bounds scale down.

What would settle it

Measure the internal solar magnetic field in the resonance region, for example through improved helioseismic inversions or solar oblateness data, and recompute the transverse-plasmon flux; alternatively, run a helioscope with sensitivity around g_aγ = 1.3×10⁻⁹ GeV⁻¹ at m_a ≈ 150 eV—a detected line near 150 eV would confirm the mechanism, while a null result together with an independently measured field near 3×10⁷ G would refute the current interpretation.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A previously unprobed solar axion source is now experimentally constrained, with the strongest new limit g_aγ < 1.32×10⁻⁹ GeV⁻¹ at 90% C.L. around m_a ≈ 150 eV.
  • In the 35–280 eV mass range, the transverse-plasmon flux dominates the Primakoff flux by up to two orders of magnitude, improving the excluded coupling by up to a factor of 2.73.
  • All fitted modulation amplitudes between 1 and 20 keV are consistent with the null hypothesis, so no positive inverse-Primakoff solar axion signal appears in this 625.75 kg·yr exposure.
  • The shape of the exclusion curve maps the solar interior: each axion mass probes the magnetic field and plasma at a different resonance radius, so the limit curve encodes information about the radiative-zone field.
  • Existing low-background underground experiments can already test this mechanism without building new detectors.
  • The transverse-plasmon signal peaks near 2 keV, whereas the Primakoff signal peaks near 6 keV, so spectral information can help separate the two production channels in future analyses.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the transverse-plasmon flux scales as the square of the magnetic field, the same null data could be recast as an upper limit on the radiative-zone magnetic field for a fixed coupling, offering a way to probe the solar interior that is independent of helioseismology.
  • The claim's reach depends on the solar magnetic-field model; if the true radiative-zone field is much weaker than the assumed peak near 3×10⁷ G, the quoted limits would weaken proportionally, so an independent measurement of that field would sharpen or challenge the result.
  • A helioscope with sensitivity below g_aγ ≈ 1.3×10⁻⁹ GeV⁻¹ in the 35–280 eV mass range could directly confirm resonant transverse-plasmon production, turning the current exclusion into a detection or ruling out the assumed flux normalization.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a search for solar axion-like particles produced via resonant conversion of transverse plasmons in the Sun's magnetic field, using 625.75 kg·yr of ANAIS-112 data. The search exploits the annual modulation of the solar axion flux caused by the Earth–Sun distance variation, with detection through the inverse Primakoff effect in NaI(Tl) crystals. No statistically significant modulation is found in 1–20 keV bins, and the authors derive the first experimental constraints on the axion–photon coupling that include the transverse-plasmon production channel, with the strongest limit g_aγ < 1.32×10^-9 GeV^-1 (90% C.L.) at m_a ≈ 150 eV. The signal prediction combines the conventional Primakoff flux with the resonant transverse-plasmon flux using the SolarAxionFlux package and a solar magnetic-field model chosen to saturate helioseismological upper bounds.

Significance. If the result stands, it opens a genuinely new experimental window: solar axion production through resonant transverse-plasmon conversion has not been searched for before, and the ANAIS-112 exposure already probes this channel. The null modulation measurement itself appears robust: the analysis uses a detailed time-dependent background model, simultaneous fits over nine detectors, and a large exposure. A further strength is the use of the open-source SolarAxionFlux package and the availability of the analysis code, which makes the flux calculation reproducible. However, the central limit is conditional on an unmeasured solar magnetic-field normalization, and the printed signal-modulation equations are internally inconsistent. These issues must be resolved before the claimed 'first experimental bounds' can be accepted as stated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Eqs. (8)–(9)] These two equations are inconsistent. Expanding the Earth–Sun distance to second order gives R(t) = R_a [1 + 2ε cos(ω(t−t0)) + 3ε^2 cos^2(ω(t−t0)) + ...]. If Eq. (8) is written as S(t) = A [2ε cos(...) + 3ε^2 cos^2(...)], then the parameter A must be R_a. Equation (9), however, defines A ≈ (R_a/2)(4ε) = 2ε R_a to leading order. Substituting Eq. (9) into Eq. (8) suppresses the first-harmonic coefficient by a factor 2ε ≈ 0.033 relative to the physical flux modulation. Since the expected signal scales as g_aγ^4, this would shift the derived coupling limit by roughly (2ε)^−1/4 ≈ 2.3 if Eq. (9) were actually used. The authors should correct Eq. (8) (or Eq. (9)) and state explicitly which convention was used in the numerical pipeline; otherwise the quoted limit is affected at a level far exceeding the stated systematics.
  2. [Supplemental Material, 'Solar Magnetic-Field Models'; Eq. (3)] The normalization of the transverse-plasmon flux is proportional to |B(r_res)|^2, and the headline limit g_aγ < 1.32×10^-9 GeV^-1 at m_a ≈ 150 eV is set by the resonant flux from the radiative zone. The Supplemental Material states that the adopted 'seismic' model is 'chosen to saturate these observational limits and should not be interpreted as measurements of the internal solar magnetic field.' Helioseismology and oblateness provide upper bounds only, so the true radiative-zone field could be substantially lower. If the peak field were 3×10^6 G instead of 3×10^7 G, the TP flux drops by two orders of magnitude and the coupling limit weakens by a factor ~√10 ≈ 3.2, which would erase most of the claimed TP enhancement over the Primakoff-only limit. The quoted +19%/−10% systematic from the magnetic-field model samples only models that saturate the observational upper bounds and does not in
minor comments (6)
  1. [Supplemental Material, Table I] Table I reports the dominant systematic uncertainty 'for m_a = 0', but the headline limit is at m_a ≈ 150 eV. Since different axion masses resonate at different solar radii and therefore in different magnetic-field regimes, the systematic should be evaluated at the mass of interest.
  2. [Fig. 3] The label 'null χ2 = 1.32' should specify whether this is a reduced chi-square and give the number of degrees of freedom, so the reader can assess the goodness of fit.
  3. [Ref. [11]] In reference [11], the author name 'M. Gianotti' appears to be a typo for 'M. Giannotti' (as spelled in the author list of this manuscript).
  4. [Supplemental Material, Fig. D caption] The phrase 'TPC exclusion limit' in the Figure D caption should probably read 'TP' (transverse-plasmon) exclusion limit, or otherwise the acronym should be defined.
  5. [Eq. (7)] Equation (7) mixes differential flux, cross-section, numbers of nuclei, target mass, exposure, and detector response in a way that is dimensionally unclear. Please clarify whether this is a rate or an expected count, and define F_det precisely.
  6. [Bayesian analysis paragraph after Fig. 3] The prior on g_aγ^4 is described as 'flat'. Since the signal strength is proportional to g_aγ^4, this is a specific prior choice and not equivalent to a flat prior on g_aγ itself. A short justification, or a statement of how the upper limit depends on this choice, would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the signal prediction is external and open-source, and the measured modulation amplitudes are not recycled into the prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The predicted solar axion signal is built from two external inputs: the Primakoff flux computed with the open-source SolarAxionFlux package [19] and the transverse-plasmon flux given by Eq. (3), taken from the published calculation of Ref. [11] and implemented in the same package. Neither input is fitted to the ANAIS-112 modulation data. The measured annual modulation amplitudes are extracted independently from the background-plus-modulation fit, and the resulting null result is then compared with the predicted amplitudes to set limits on g_aγ. No fitted parameter is recycled into the prediction, and the modulation amplitude is not defined in terms of the quantity being constrained. The only potentially load-bearing self-citation is Ref. [11], whose authors include M. Giannotti, also an author of this paper. However, that reference is a published, parameter-free theoretical derivation of the transverse-plasmon flux with stated assumptions, and it is independently implemented in the open-source SolarAxionFlux package; it is not a result that is only asserted by the present authors to make the conclusion forced. The solar magnetic-field model is assumed a priori, chosen to saturate helioseismic upper bounds, and the paper explicitly states it 'should not be interpreted as measurements of the internal solar magnetic field.' This makes the quoted limit conditional on that model, and the omission of the overall normalization uncertainty is a legitimate physics concern, but it is not a circularity: the magnetic-field strength is an external input, not an output of the analysis. Thus the central claim—first experimental bounds including the transverse-plasmon flux—is a genuine measurement-based limit under a stated model assumption. No step reduces by construction to its own inputs; any inadequacy in the magnetic-field model is a systematic uncertainty rather than a circular derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis depends on two classes of inputs: an external flux model whose normalization is set by unmeasured solar magnetic fields, and an internal modulation/background model. No new particles or mediators are introduced. The key free choice is the solar B-field profile, which directly sets the signal amplitude and hence the reported limit.

free parameters (2)
  • Peak magnetic-field strengths in the seismic solar model = B_RZ ≈ 3e7 G, B_tachocline ≈ 5e5 G, B_convective ≈ 5e4 G
    Chosen by hand to saturate helioseismic upper bounds, not measured. The TP flux scales as B^2 at the resonance, so the derived limit scales directly with these assumed values.
  • Per-detector background nuisance parameters R0,d and f_d = Not reported individually
    Fitted simultaneously with the modulation amplitude in each energy bin; the background model absorbs time-dependent detector rates and is part of the limit-setting procedure.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Resonant transverse-plasmon production formula Eq. (3), taken from refs. [11,19], correctly describes the solar axion flux including finite-width effects and weak mixing.
    The central flux prediction is imported from prior theory and the SolarAxionFlux package; the paper does not re-derive it.
  • domain assumption The solar magnetic-field model saturating helioseismic upper bounds is representative, with ±50% uncertainty.
    Stated in the Supplemental Material: the models 'should not be interpreted as measurements.' The TP flux and limit are conditional on this assumption.
  • domain assumption The inverse Primakoff cross section, Eq. (6), in the relativistic limit applies to Na and I nuclei in the 1–20 keV region of interest.
    Detection channel relies on the published cross section; the relativistic limit is marginal near the lower edge of the ROI for masses around 150 eV.
  • domain assumption The time-dependent signal template Eq. (8) with normalization Eq. (9) correctly models the annual modulation from the Earth–Sun distance variation.
    This is the paper's own model, and the two equations are internally inconsistent by a factor of order 2ε, so the predicted amplitudes used for limit setting are suspect.
  • domain assumption The Geant4-based background template plus a flat residual term describes the detector time evolution, with the sub-3 keV unexplained component being time-independent.
    The modulation fit relies on separating signal from background; the residual low-energy component is unmodeled but assumed flat in time.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 11292 in / 15161 out tokens · 159912 ms · 2026-08-01T08:59:35.478477+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Solar axion-like particles (ALPs) can be resonantly produced through the conversion of transverse plasmons in the magnetic field of the solar interior, introducing a production mechanism complementary to the conventional Primakoff process. In this Letter, we report the first experimental search for solar ALPs produced through this mechanism. Using an exposure of 625.75 kg$\times$yr from ANAIS-112, we search for the annual modulation of the flux induced by the variation of the Earth--Sun distance, assuming detection through inverse Primakoff conversion in the detector. Modulation amplitudes fitted in 1 keV bins between 1--20 keV are consistent with the absence of modulation, yielding the first constraints on the axion--photon coupling that include the resonant transverse-plasmon flux, $g_{a\gamma} < 1.32\times 10^{-9} \mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ (90\% C.L.) at $m_a \simeq 150$ eV. This previously unexplored production channel extends the sensitivity of ANAIS-112 in the mass range 35--280 eV, where, for the expected solar magnetic-field models, the transverse-plasmon flux exceeds the Primakoff flux by up to two orders of magnitude.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27346 by A. Ortiz de Sol\'orzano, C. Seoane, D. Cintas, E. Garc\'ia, I. Coarasa, J. Amar\'e, J. Apilluelo, J. K. Vogel, J. Puimed\'on, J. Ruz, M. Giannotti, M. L. Sarsa, M. Mart\'inez, R. M. Alkaddah, S. Bharat, S. Cebri\'an, S. J. Hollick, T. Pardo, Y. Ortigoza.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Exclusion limits at the 90% C.L. on the axion– [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Differential solar axion fluxes for representa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Measured annual modulation amplitudes obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  2. [2]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  3. [3]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  4. [4]

    Jaeckel and A

    J. Jaeckel and A. Ringwald, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science60, 405 (2010), arXiv:1002.0329 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rept.643, 1 (2016), arXiv:1510.07633 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    I. G. Irastorza and J. Redondo, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 102, 89 (2018), arXiv:1801.08127 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Sikivie, Phys

    P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. Lett.51, 1415 (1983)

    1983

  8. [8]

    G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. D33, 897 (1986)

    1986

  9. [9]

    G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rept.198, 1 (1990)

    1990

  10. [10]

    Redondo, JCAP1312, 008

    J. Redondo, JCAP1312, 008

  11. [11]

    Guarini, M

    E. Guarini, M. Gianotti, A. Mirizzi, and J. Redondo, Phys. Rev. D102, 123024 (2020)

    2020

  12. [12]

    G. A. et al. (COSINE-100 Collaboration), Physical Re- view D107, 122004 (2023), arXiv:2302.10267 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Anastassopouloset al.(CAST), Nature Physics13, 584 (2017)

    V. Anastassopouloset al.(CAST), Nature Physics13, 584 (2017)

    2017

  14. [14]

    CAST Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 221005 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    I. J. Arnquistet al.(Majorana), Physical Review Letters 129, 081803 (2022), arXiv:2206.05789 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Zenget al.(PandaX), Physical Review Letters134, 10.1103/physrevlett.134.041001 (2025)

    X. Zenget al.(PandaX), Physical Review Letters134, 10.1103/physrevlett.134.041001 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.041001 2025

  17. [17]

    Aprileet al.(XENONnT), Physical Review Letters 129, 10.1103/physrevlett.129.161805 (2022)

    E. Aprileet al.(XENONnT), Physical Review Letters 129, 10.1103/physrevlett.129.161805 (2022)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.161805 2022

  18. [18]

    D. S. Akeribet al., Search for new physics via low-energy electron recoils with a 4.2 tonne×year exposure from the lz experiment (2025), arXiv:2511.17350 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    S. Hoof, J. Jaeckel, and L. J. Thormaehlen, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021(09), 006, arXiv:2101.08789 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    J. N. Bahcall, A. M. Serenelli, and S. Basu, The Astro- physical Journal Supplement Series165, 400 (2006)

    2006

  21. [21]

    Redondo and G

    J. Redondo and G. Raffelt, JCAP08, 034, arXiv:1305.2920 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [22]

    Amar´ eet al., Phys

    J. Amar´ eet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 051001 (2025), arXiv:2502.01542 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Amar´ eet al., Eur

    J. Amar´ eet al., Eur. Phys. J. C79, 228 (2019), arXiv:1812.01472 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    J. B. Dent, B. Dutta, J. L. Newstead, E. Segreto, and C. Shimmin, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 131804 (2020), arXiv:2006.01865 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    Abeet al.(XMASS), Phys

    K. Abeet al.(XMASS), Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 121801 (2021), arXiv:2011.05267 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    Amareet al.(ANAIS), Eur

    J. Amareet al.(ANAIS), Eur. Phys. J. C79, 412 (2019), arXiv:1901.09353 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    Amar´ eet al., J

    J. Amar´ eet al., J. Phys. Conf. Ser.2156, 012175 (2021), arXiv:2110.08109 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Amareet al., Phys

    J. Amareet al., Phys. Rev. D103, 102005 (2021), arXiv:2103.01175 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    The TP-axion flux data has been made available upon request at, https://github.com/RamaAlkaddah/TP Axion analysis ANAIS

  30. [30]

    Origins Excellence Cluster, Dark Matter Data Cen- ter (2026), https://www.origins-cluster.de/odsl/dark- matter-data-center

    2026

  31. [31]

    H. M. Antia, S. M. Chitre, and M. J. Thompson, Astron. Astrophys.360, 335 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0005587

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  32. [32]

    Friedland and A

    A. Friedland and A. Gruzinov, Astrophys. J.601, 570 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0211377

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  33. [33]

    Couvidat, S

    S. Couvidat, S. Turck-Chieze, and A. G. Kosovichev, As- trophys. J.599, 1434 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0203107

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  34. [34]

    Redondo and G

    J. Redondo and G. Raffelt, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2013(08), 034

  35. [35]

    Adhikariet al.(COSINE-100), Sci

    G. Adhikariet al.(COSINE-100), Sci. Rep.13, 4676 (2023), arXiv:2208.05158 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Pardo,Advances in detector response and background modeling in the ANAIS-112 experiment for annual mod- ulation and other rare event searches, Ph.D

    T. Pardo,Advances in detector response and background modeling in the ANAIS-112 experiment for annual mod- ulation and other rare event searches, Ph.D. thesis, U. Zaragoza (2025), arXiv:2510.19469 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Coarasaet al., JCAP11, 048, [Erratum: JCAP 06, E01 (2023)], arXiv:2209.14113 [astro-ph.IM]

    I. Coarasaet al., JCAP11, 048, [Erratum: JCAP 06, E01 (2023)], arXiv:2209.14113 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Coarasaet al., Commun

    I. Coarasaet al., Commun. Phys.7, 345 (2024), arXiv:2404.17348 [astro-ph.IM]. S1 Supplemental Material This Supplemental Material provides the theoretical details supporting the analysis presented in the main Letter. We summarize the solar magnetic-field models adopted throughout this work, review the plasma dis- persion relations governing plasmon–axion ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [2026]

    Color meets Flavor

    The present analysis uses the 6.4-year data release, corresponding to an exposure of 625.75 kg×yr [22]. The detectors are surrounded by passive and active shielding, including archaeological and low-activity lead, an anti-radon enclosure, active muon vetoes, polyethy- lene shielding, and water tanks [23]. Detector response has been continuously monitored ...

    2010